CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 18(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2468/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 October 2023AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no disallowance can be made for short deduction of TDS if tax has been deducted, even at a lower rate. However, the disallowance under Section 14A was upheld as the assessee failed to show any infirmity.

What were the facts?

The assessee deducted TDS at a lower rate than prescribed on payments made to certain parties. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire payments. The assessee also earned exempt income and did not make any suo-motu disallowance under Section 14A.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance is permissible for short deduction of TDS? Whether the disallowance under Section 14A was justified?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “ C ”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY& SHRI PRASHANT MAHARSHI

Hearing: 19/10/2023Pronounced: 27/10/2023

ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 02/05/2023, for the Assessment Year 2014- 15.

2.

This appeal is time barred by 11 days. The assessee has filed an application praying for condonation of delay, citing reasons for the delay in filing of appeal. We have perused the said application. We are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is for the bonafide reasons stated in the application. The delay of 11 days in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

3. Shri Jitendra Singh appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) in an ex-parte proceedings has upheld the addition/disallowance made in respect of :

(i) Short deduction of TDS; and (ii) Disallwoance u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 [in short ‘the Rules’] The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee had made payment to three parties i.e. (i) Stamco Steel Processor Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Keshva Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and(iii) Suhas Enterprises. The assessee deducted TDS @ 1% on the payment made to the aforesaid parties. According to the Assessing Officer TDS should have been deducted @2% u/s. 194C of the Act, hence, the Assessing Officer disallowed entire payments made to the aforesaid parties. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a well settled law that no disallowance can be made for short deduction of TDS. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT vs. S.K.Tekriwal, 361 ITR 432(Cal) and in the case of PCIT vs. Future First Info Services Pvt. Ltd., 447 ITR 299 (Del).

4.

Per contra, Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee.

5.

Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. The assessee in appeal has assailed impugned order on two counts:

(i) Disallowance on account of low deduction of TDS; and (ii) Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act.

The assessee has made payment to three parties i.e. (i) Stamco Steel 6. Processor Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Keshva Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and(iii) Suhas Enterprises aggregating to Rs.17,44,248/-. The assessee deducted TDS @ 1% on the payments made to aforesaid parties. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee was liable to deducted tax at soruce @2% instead of 1%. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed entire payments made to the aforesaid parties. It is no more re-integra that where the assessee has deducted tax at soruce albeit at a lower rate, no disallowance of the payments can be made.[Re: CIT vs. S.K.Tekriwal(supra)]. In view of the above settled legal position, disallowance on account of deduction of TDS at lower rate is directed to be deleted. The ground No.2 of appeal is thus, allowed.

7.

In ground No.3 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r. 8D. It is an undisputed fact that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has earned exempt income of Rs.82,528/-. No suo-motu disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act was made by the assessee for earning exempt income. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Rule 8D and made disallowance of Rs.44,279/- u/r.8D(2)(iii). The assessee has not been able to show any infirmity in the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and thereafter confirmed by the CIT(A). We find no merit in ground No.3 of appeal, hence, dismissed.

8.

The ground No.1 of appeal is general in nature, hence, requires no separate adjudication.

9.

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 27th day of October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARSHI ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/ Mumbai, �दनांक/Dated 27/10/2023 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) �ितिलिप अ�ेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →